Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!sgcpal
From: sgcpal@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lsi
Subject: Re: SPICE 2g6
Message-ID: <4098@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 10-Nov-87 10:50:29 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.4098
Posted: Tue Nov 10 10:50:29 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Nov-87 03:46:22 EST
References: <8711091710.AA02296@vlsi.cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: sgcpal@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (P.A.ul Layman [EE-Device Physics])
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 26

In article <8711091710.AA02296@vlsi.cs.washington.edu> larry@VLSI.CS.WASHINGTON.EDU (Larry McMurchie) writes:
>I still believe that the formula appearing in the code originally 
>distributed by Berkeley is correct:
>  200 FACTOR=0.125D0*FNARRW*TWOPI*EPSSIL/COX*XL
>....and that we goofed when we tried to modify it. 

Indeed Larry and Berkley are correct!

Unfortunately I only looked at a few lines of code around
the calculation of the above FACTOR.  I never considered
the possibility that COX was the Gate Capacitance(Cox*W*L)(F)
rather than the Oxide Capacitance(Cox)(F/m**2).  I could go on
about this being a poor choice for a variable name when
it *traditionally* means something different, but I won't.
After all, we can only use 6 character names in standard fortran
and I'm sure spice must use most of the 1.5e9 available.(:-)

My apologies,

Paul A. Layman

University of Waterloo, Electrical Engineering,
Silicon Devices and Integrated Circuits Research Group (SiDIC)

INTERNET:	playman@phonon.waterloo.edu
UUCP:		{decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!phonon!playman